Here are descriptions of two teachers hired for the 2008-2009 school year in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD):
- Bachelors degree in Interdisciplinary Studies of Health Science from U of Texas - Arlington, with no advanced degree, applied August, now teaching Special Education.
- Philosophy graduate from Florida International, with graduate degrees in Digital Media and Buddhist Studies, applied August, now teaching Math and Chemistry.
Alternatively, here are descriptions of two teachers who applied but were not hired:
- Credentialed in Math and Mandarin, Masters degree, 3.8 undergrad GPA. Applied April, would “probably” have accepted a timely offer with SFUSD, but became “frustrated” with the process. Now teaching in Lafayette.
- Engineering degree (3.8 GPA), Math credential, Masters degree. “Very satisfied” with SFUSD student teaching, applied February, but hiring timeline was “very important” in decision to withdraw. Now teaching in Ravenswood.
According to
the latest report from The New Teacher Project, these examples are indicative of a larger problem in SFUSD, where the district has been successful in recruitment but losing quality applicants because of late hiring.
5 comments:
I have no personal experience with SFUSD, but I have seen similar problems in other districts. It is indicative of a disconnect between a bureaucracy and the teaching force. Based on their actions it often seems that large districts (as represented by their front line employees) are not dedicated to serving students, but into keeping their menial jobs by going through the motions. As a consequence, they miss a lot of great opportunities.
This is commonplace.
I have seen it both as a policy analyst, a visitor of schools, and the child of a school board member.
My dad came home with example like this all the time.
He could not believe how illogical the hiring process was (if often boiled down to nepotism of one kind or another, insider hiring, or the need for a new football or field hockey coach.
Seven years after the feds "mandated" in-field teaching, we see school districts not even being able to fake it let alone make it.
Arne Duncan has a chance to take another shot at this with his $5 billion incentive fund and a mandate to equalize the distribution of qualified teachers, including subject matter knowledge as a criteria.
Time will tell.
The problem with blogging is that we are supposed to start with an off-color joke before addressing issues this sensitive. So I'll skip the joke and start with the punchline, "So, they hired the one who ..." could do discipline. Seriously, you can be the greatest classroom instructor in the world, but in secondary schools job #1 is being a cop.
I have no complaints with the actual words of the report and I learned from them. When addressing any dysfunctional system you can always find plenty of people to blame. In inner city schools we get mad at principals when things are cratering but conditions in the building are the last things on their minds. The principals answer to the central office and the central office answers to all its masters and they all face deadlines that have no relationships to educational realities, and so the culture of compliance keeps on keeping on.
But in urban schools, at least, there is one overwhelming factor that makes it impossible to recruit and retain teachers and we aren't supposed to talk about it in polite company. Its the inability of high poverty, NEIGHBORHOOD secondary school to deal with chronic disruption and violence that drives out young talent. (and in fairness to the young teachers, it is so much harder to get the discipline job done if you don't have grey hair.)
History and society created this horrible situation. I've wrestled with the issue of disciplinary consequences from every angle but I've never figured out a way to get the political system to address the third rail of educational politics.
BUT, we've never had realistic options for raising the behavioral standards and building an appropriate learning culture, so why complain that bureacrats don't want to urinate into the wind on this one? BUT NOW, the Stimulus Package could give us the tools to address chronic disorder and violence. Under NCLB, we hired plenty of people to play statistical games with the numbers, but we've never had the money to provide timely interventions for troubled students. Now we could. Put two years into investments so we can hire new talent to deal with behavior and then see how much easier it would be to address the revolving door of teachers in hard core schools.
This should also give us a chance to question why we have such a dysfunctional system. If we were designing a system with the intent of creating a permanent underclass, could we have created a better system? Of course, when troubled kids spin out of control, there should be immediate, caring, firm, and constructive interventions. But why on earth would it be classroom teachers who get that job? Some of us get off on the adrenalin rush of teaching as we manage social pathologies, but the system can't work for many kids. The last people who should be managing these crises while doing their official job are teachers. We would have never considered such an irrational system if we as a society did not have so much disrespect for teachers. We are either a cross between Glen Ford and a karate kicking beauty or a slug. But the urban pathologies that make such good drama in a movie, are not so pretty in real life.
As the recession worsens, you guys wouldn't believe what I've seen in the last few weeks. I don't believe what I've seen in the last six weeks! I'll welcome any reinforcements we can get, from the parole officers, nurses, counselors etc. to the TFA and KIPP, and with the Stimulus Package maybe we can address THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT AND THE TOUGHEST ISSUE IN EDUCATION.
Actually there is a joke that I can use. The old Marquette basketball coach used to say, "If your nose hasn't been broken, you've been 'waltzing it.'" If you are a NEIGHBORHOOD secondary teacher and you don't complain about the chronic disorder and violence, "You've been waltzing it."
If violence and disruptions in secondary classrooms are the biggest impediment to education why don't we change the standards of behavior? Why don't we let parents know what is acceptable and what will not be tolerated? Students who do not behave accordingly will be thrown out. Although I feel everyone deserves an education, it is a privilege, it is a right, if it is not accepted by the student, then the student can be removed.
I spent a lot of time in private schools as a student and a teacher. We had few discipline problems. When we did the threat that a student could be expelled was always there. That got the parents and students to quell the behavior, and if it didn't... well, the problem went away.
Jay,
Your comment about private schools and expulsion is the sticking point. In public schools, butt-in-seat equals money. I've found, over the course of 4 years (not a great amount of time, I admit) that the almighty dollar is more important to those who make expulsion decisions. What this outlook does to school discipline is, in short, appalling.
Post a Comment